LAPSED CHILDREN - Tartu Ülikool

LASTE VAESUS JA SOTSIAALNE KAITSTUS CHILD POVERTY AND SOCIAL PROTECTION
Relative poverty pattern
Poverty pattern: one
third — single people,
15% single parents
The majority, or one third (33%) of households in poverty, consists of single-member
households (Table 1 on page 25). Households with children account for a half of the
households in poverty. Although single-parent households represent the minority among the
households with children, they are most represented among the households living in
poverty.
It has been agreed on EU level that a person is considered poor if his or her income is lower
than 60% of median equivalence income. In order to describe more specific distribution of
poverty, other rates are also used — 40%, 50%, 70% (Figure 9 on page 26).
Child poverty rate has declined over past few years. And this decline has taken place on the
accounts of the poorest — 8% of children received income lower than 40% of median
equivalence income in 2005, whereas the relevant rate in 2003 was 11%.
At-risk-of-poverty gap
The level of poverty of our poor population is characterised by at-risk-of-poverty gap. The
intensity of poverty refers to the difference between the at-risk-of-poverty threshold and the
median income of population below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. The income of
households with children living in poverty is on average one third less than the at-risk-ofpoverty
threshold. The poverty was the highest among single-parent households and
households with three or more children.
In comparison with other EU Member States, our children are relatively poorer (Figure 10 on
page 26). Only the children in Latvia and Lithuania are poorer than children in Estonia. At
the same time the median income of poor children is only one tenth below the at-risk-ofpoverty
threshold in Finland, which has the lowest level of child poverty.
Subsistence minimum
Subsistence minimum
— the minimum
amount of means of
subsistence required
for a human being
In addition to relative poverty, Statistics Estonia also reveals another indicator referring to
the welfare of children — the subsistence minimum. The subsistence minimum is the
minimum amount of means of subsistence, needed to cover his/her daily needs. The
methodology for calculating the subsistence minimum was developed under the coordination
of the Ministry of Social Affairs in the framework of the project “The methodology for
estimation of subsistence minimum and poverty and modernisation of consumption
coefficients used in calculating social indicators”. The calculation of subsistence minimum
involves three cost components: expenses on food, housing expenses, individual expenses
on non-food items and services.
In 2007 the subsistence minimum was 2,341 kroons (Table 2 on page 27). In 2007 6.5% of
Estonian people lived below the subsistence minimum, the corresponding indicator for
children was 9.5%. When compared to 2004, their proportion has declined over two times.
Thus, the subsistence level of households with children has improved, although their income
has not increased when compared to other groups.
Child poverty has decreased to some extent during recent years, but it is still higher than
general poverty rate. In Estonia the single parent households and households with three or
more children live at the highest risk of poverty. This is due to poor ratio of working people
and dependants. In case of single parent, the proportion of poor is higher due to higher
unemployment rate. Furthermore, single parents are mostly women whose income is
significantly lower than the income of men.
There are also regional differences in poverty rate. The number of poor children is relatively
lower in the cities and in Northern Estonia. The discrepancies arise from different
unemployment rate and wages and salaries’ level. In addition rural households are bigger
than urban households.
In comparison with other European countries, the level of child poverty in Estonia is above
the average. Our position is rather good before the transfers, but after transfers our position
will fall — our social protection costs are extremely small, being almost three times lower
than relevant costs in more successful countries.
96
LAPSED. CHILDREN